IOT Developmental Thread

no sequels?

i rest my case.

:rolleyes:

The one I'm talking about is RfMK III, which was very successful if you had been bothered to look for it. It was preceeded by RfMKs I and II which were also successful (though the threads have been deleted by the mods). RfMK IV died but it was due to Splime (the GM) being taken by the aliens/going AWOL. Point is, complex forum games like RFMK are possible, have been done and have been successful in the past, so don't dismiss the idea out of hand.

Besides, no one's forcing you to play it, Mathalamus. If you don't like the rules, if you think it's too complex or whatever, don't play. Simple as that.
 
i looked at Rfmk 3. it seems complicated and well developed. nice.

i just think that IOT should stay simple, and if people want more complicated games,they can start RfMK 5.
 
RfMK was extremely fun even though it was a little complicated. But, another reason it was successful is because you were encouraged to roleplay (I forget exactly how it happened). However, it did have more of a time commitment that IOT's do, so anyone signing up really needs to want to do it.
 
IOT is getting a bit boring I think we should make a social group or a thread and discuss an Idea for a new game (a map strategy)
 
IOT is getting a bit boring I think we should make a social group or a thread and discuss an Idea for a new game (a map strategy)
I have to agree with you on that one.
 
I'm thinking of doing a sort of RFC-esque IOT. There would be few players at the beginning, but gradually more and more. I'd make it balanced, though. Thoughts?
 
I'm thinking of doing a sort of RFC-esque IOT. There would be few players at the beginning, but gradually more and more. I'd make it balanced, though. Thoughts?

sorry,, but RFC was always annoying to me. i would destablize for some unknown reason and i have to reconquer everything, after which i would destabilize anyways. in short RFC's stability mechanic sucks. try something closer to revolution or something.
 
I'm thinking of doing a sort of RFC-esque IOT. There would be few players at the beginning, but gradually more and more. I'd make it balanced, though. Thoughts?

Good idea! I'm not TOTALLY sure how you'd do it, but stability would have to be tied in somehow. Here's my thoughts:

1. Any number of players can sign up, but only like five will actually get placed in the game at the start.

2. Whenever a new nation spawns, the next person would be PMed.

Not sure how you would determine WHEN this happens, if you felt like making them historical, you could base it off real life (Starting off with just India, China, Egypt, Sumeria, and Babylon) and then just add them as they come in real life (I'd think start in 4,000 BC and do 500 years per turn, so Greece would spawn after like 4-5 turns, Persia like two more after that, and then it would really pick up speed.

I'd probably allow the earlier players who die to respawn at least once. Not right off the bat, but eventually. This is simply because, if you are Babylon, the deck is stacked against you. Persia is going to eat you alive. There is a CHANCE of this not happening, but it probably would.

Do UHCs, but don't make everyone else LOSE once someone completes them. Make that player win, but they can still play if they like. Then, at the end (Say, modern era) Everyone who completes their goals wins, everybody else kinda looses, and anyone who dies twice really loses (If you die early on, you should automatically get a spot on the bottom of the list of people who are waiting, but only for ancient/classical civs. If you die as England, you don't get another chance because history is against you.)

3. Be CAREFUL how you play history. History is a (Swearword) they often say, but we can't make it too much of one. There must be a chance, however unlikely, for Babylon to live until the 20th century, however, it should not be likely.

4. Nations WILL spawn. If Babylon expands into Iran, some of their land will flip when Persia comes along. If Persia goes into Arabia, their land WILL flip when Arabia comes. The way for Babylon to beat Persia is to beat them, not just by expanding into Iran too quick.

5. Incorporate historical boundaries into it. If you expand into areas you actually went, your stability should be affected less.


6 (Unique Suggestion) While collapsing in the old days would probably just lead to you keeping a few territories and a few declaring independence, it should be more interesting then that in the modern era. Think of the tribal wars in Somalia. It should be sort of like that, with groups fighting themselves for power. Also, in the modern era, you should be able to go into underground resistance if conquered.

I could probably add more, but I'll start with that;)
 
Oh, I actually have a lot of mechanics in mind, but not all of them are quite the same as yours. But I'll take them into account. :)

Actually, in accordance with IOT standards, this one will not even be remotely related to history. Just the mechanics of nation spawning is what makes it similar to RFC.
 
Oh, I actually have a lot of mechanics in mind, but not all of them are quite the same as yours. But I'll take them into account. :)

Actually, in accordance with IOT standards, this one will not even be remotely related to history. Just the mechanics of nation spawning is what makes it similar to RFC.

How would that work then?
 
I'm thinking of doing a sort of RFC-esque IOT. There would be few players at the beginning, but gradually more and more. I'd make it balanced, though. Thoughts?

I'll join, as long as it's not too complex.

sorry,, but RFC was always annoying to me. i would destablize for some unknown reason and i have to reconquer everything, after which i would destabilize anyways. in short RFC's stability mechanic sucks. try something closer to revolution or something.

Try having a good economy, that always helps. As does combining Resettlement with colonial REXing.
 
Back
Top Bottom